September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

« The Revolving Door Between DC and Wall Street | Main | Why The Great Stagnation Thesis is the Most Subversive Libertarian Argument of Our Age »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Who is Jamie Whyte?

He is associated with the Cobden Centre or Adam Smith Institute and was the guy who hosted the BBC 4 radio show on the resurgence of Austrian Economics, for which I was interviewed. He's pretty good.

For the record, both Pete and I were asked to be on the Hayek side of this debate, but both had prior commitments we could not change.

I had never realized the Cambridge group responded to the LSE letter to the Times. Usually you only see the initial Cambridge letter and the LSE response.

That was a great letter - it's on page 22 of the paper.

Jamie Whyte is a sort of grumpy popular philosopher.

He's pretty good at economics...

http://www.cobdencentre.org/author/jamie/

Lord Skildelsky is a very skilled debater.

Links.

http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011/01/bbc-4-episode-of-analysis-on-austrian-economics.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y2bwz

"conspiracy to spread mental fog"

Philosophy Harry Frankfurt wrote a dandy little paper on that topic ...

L.S.E. lectures & discussions are available on iTunes at iTunes U -- Niall Ferguson gave a series of terrific lectures this year which you can download, one of them discussing the cold war economic struggle & even a bit of Hayek.

It tells us something about the British academy -- and not something good -- that the LSE had to look overseas for an academic competent in the ideas of Hayek, one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years.

"For the record, both Pete and I were asked to be on the Hayek side of this debate, but both had prior commitments we could not change."

Hayek had a very dim view of Beveridge's competence with economics. Hayek's standard claim is the Kaldor & others wrote such things as The Beveridge Report, the economics of which Lord Beveridge, in Hayek's telling, barely understood.

Daniel, I would be very interested in what you thought was great about the letter. I see it as obfuscation.

Well it's a good summary of the trouble with universal presumptions about perfect crowding out.

The thing I personally liked most about it was that they cited Adam Smith as one of the best examples of people who struck down this zero-sum thinking. I've said for a while that Keynes continues in the Smithian tradition of pushing people away from the instinctual zero-sum thinking about the economy that people have. So it was pretty cool to see Keynes himself make the connection for me.

Daniel, but the letter accuses Hayek et al of using zero-sum thinking when they weren't. It defeats a straw man.

However, I like the fact that the third letter resurrects Say's law and uses it as a defense of Keynesian econ. The irony is deep!

BTW, the article is very entertaining! Thanks!

George Selgin has now been confirmed as the keynote speaker for the Hayekian side of this debate! I'm sure George is more than capable of dealing with Skidelsky. There were rumours on this side of the pond that Krugmam was going to show his face on the Keynesian side, but that doesn't seem to have come off. The line up now is George Selgin and Jamie White for Hayek, and Skidelsky and someone i've never heard of for Keynes ( a journalist type who will mirror Jamie White's role).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books